asylantrag-vorbereitung

/migrationsrecht:asylantrag-vorbereitung

Purpose

The skill prepares an asylum application and the BAMF hearing pursuant to § 25 AsylG: Dublin preliminary examination (§ 29 I No. 1 AsylG in conjunction with Regulation (EU) No 604/2013), triage of the forms of protection (refugee status § 3 AsylG → entitlement to asylum Art. 16a GG → subsidiary protection § 4 AsylG → prohibitions on deportation § 60 V/VII AufenthG), structuring the history of persecution and preparing the evidence. It also addresses the subsequent application § 71 AsylG in the event of a new situation. It replaces not the personal hearing; it structures it.

Inputs

Nationality, place of origin, ethnic affiliation, religion, date of birth
Date of entry, route of entry (in particular EU third countries for the Dublin examination), Eurodac hit
History of persecution chronologically (Who? When? Where? What? Why?)
Evidence (medical reports, documents, witness statements, country reports, photos)
Status of proceedings before the BAMF (application filed under § 14? Hearing date? Decision already issued?)
In the case of a subsequent application: new situation / new evidence; date of knowledge (time limit § 71 IV AsylG in conjunction with § 51 II, III VwVfG: 3 months)
State of health: mental / physical illnesses, trauma-therapeutic findings

Sub-agent architecture

Researcher provides AsylG statutes, Dublin Regulation, Qualification and Procedures Directives, BVerwG, ECJ and ECtHR case law as well as commentary passages (GK-AsylG, Marx, NK-AuslR Hofmann). Drafter structures the history of persecution chronologically, reviews the triage of the forms of protection and drafts pleadings / statements. Reviewer checks the deadline calendar (in particular Dublin transfer deadlines and § 71 IV) and whether the history of persecution is structured without suggestion.

Procedure

1. Application and jurisdiction

Asylum application § 13 AsylG: in writing or orally; simultaneously counts as a request for asylum
Application to the BAMF § 14 AsylG: personal application at the competent branch office
Permission to remain § 55 AsylG arises by operation of law with the request for asylum
Language mediator pursuant to § 17 AsylG; client communication usually via interpreters

2. Dublin preliminary examination (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013)

Jurisdiction criteria Art. 7 ff. Dublin III (family criteria, previous visa, first entry, free stay)
Eurodac hit Cat. 1 / Cat. 2 in another Member State? – Take back request / take charge request
Self-entry Art. 17 Dublin III: political sovereignty of Germany; in practice in cases of systemic deficiencies (ECJ, judgment of 21.12.2011 – joined Cases C-411/10, C-493/10, N.S. and Others, dejure.org; ECJ, judgment of 19.03.2019 – Case C-163/17, Jawo, dejure.org) or in cases of family unity
Transfer deadlines Art. 29 Dublin III: 6 months Standard; 12 months in case of detention; 18 months in case of flight. Expiry of the deadline = transfer of jurisdiction to DE.
Decision of inadmissibility § 29 I No. 1 AsylG with deportation order § 34a → 1 week urgent application § 80 V VwGO in conjunction with § 34a II AsylG

3. Forms of protection triage

Check in priority (standard order of the BAMF):

a) Refugee status § 3 AsylG (Directive 2011/95/EU)
- Persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, membership in a particular social group (§ 3 I)
- Acts of persecution § 3a (serious violations of human rights)
- Actors § 3c: state, parties/organizations, non-state actors (if the state/international organization is demonstrably unable or unwilling to provide protection)
- Internal protection § 3e: no entitlement if the person can reasonably be expected to relocate to another part of the country
b) Entitlement to asylum Art. 16a GG
- Subsidiary to § 3 AsylG and because of third-country regulation Art. 16a II GG / § 26a AsylG in practice rarely applicable (entry from the EU = safe third country)
c) Subsidiary protection § 4 AsylG (Directive 2011/95/EU)
- Serious harm: (1) death penalty, (2) torture/inhuman or degrading treatment, (3) serious and individual threat to life / physical integrity as a result of indiscriminate violence in an internal / international armed conflict (CJEU, judgment of 17.02.2009 – Case C-465/07, Elgafaji, dejure.org)
d) National prohibitions on deportation
- § 60 V AufenthG: violation of the ECHR (as a rule Art. 3) in the destination country
- § 60 VII sentence 1 AufenthG: significant and concrete danger to life, limb, liberty
- § 60 VII sentences 3, 4 AufenthG: danger due to illness – substantial deterioration; qualified medical certificate required pursuant to § 60a IIc, IId AufenthG

4. Structuring the history of persecution

Requirements for credibility: coherent, free of contradictions, detailed, without suggestion. Structure along:

Chronological (before / during / after the events)
Actor (Who carried out the persecution?)
Connection criterion § 3b AsylG (race / religion / political opinion etc.)
Evidence for each factual node

Important: The drafter does not invent facts and gives no pre-formulated answers for the hearing. He only structures what comes from the client. An interpreter is absolutely necessary.

5. Hearing preparation § 25 AsylG

Informing the client about the procedure, duration, role of the interpreter, duty to cooperate under § 15 AsylG
Trauma-sensitive preparation (breaks, if necessary a female hearing officer / interpreter under § 17a)
Note: § 25 V – the transcript is translated back; duty to correct
Submit evidence / medical certificates to the BAMF before the hearing

6. Subsequent application § 71 AsylG

Deadline 3 months from knowledge of the new circumstances / evidence (§ 71 IV in conjunction with § 51 III VwVfG)
Requirements of § 51 I VwVfG: subsequent change in circumstances; new evidence; grounds for reopening
No entitlement to a hearing; but possibility of a written statement
Risk: rejection as inadmissible under § 29 I No. 5 → 1-week urgent application in the case of a deportation warning

7. Decision outlook and subsequent deadlines

Grant → residence permit under § 25 I (asylum), II (refugee / subsidiary protection), III (prohibition of deportation) AufenthG
Rejection as unfounded under § 31 II → 2 weeks time limit for filing an action under § 74 I AsylG; suspensive effect of the action under § 75 I
Rejection as manifestly unfounded under § 30 → 1 week action and urgent application under § 36 III AsylG
Dublin inadmissibility under § 29 I No. 1 → 1 week urgent application under § 34a II AsylG

Sources and citation style

Binding: ../../../references/zitierweise.md.

Statutes

§ 3 AsylG (refugee status)
§ 3a–3e AsylG (acts of persecution / grounds / actors / internal protection)
§ 4 AsylG (subsidiary protection)
§ 13 AsylG, § 14 (application)
§ 17 AsylG (interpreter)
§ 25 AsylG (hearing)
§ 29 AsylG (inadmissibility, Dublin)
§ 30 AsylG (manifestly unfounded)
§ 34, § 34a, § 36 AsylG (deportation warning / deportation order / urgent legal protection)
§ 71 AsylG (subsequent application)
§ 74 AsylG (time limit for filing an action)
§ 60 AufenthG (prohibitions of deportation V, VII)
Art. 16a GG
Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (Dublin III)
Directive 2011/95/EU (Qualification Directive)
Directive 2013/32/EU (Asylum Procedures Directive)
Geneva Refugee Convention 1951 + Additional Protocol 1967

Commentaries

Marx, AsylG, 11th ed. 2024, § 3 marginal no. 1 et seq. / § 4 marginal no. 1 et seq. / § 25 marginal no. 1 et seq.
Bergmann, in: Bergmann/Dienelt, AuslR, as of 2024, § 3 AsylG marginal no. 1 et seq.
GK-AsylG, as of 2024, § 25 marginal no. 1 et seq. / § 29 marginal no. 1 et seq.
Hofmann, in: NK-AuslR, 3rd ed. 2023, § 60 AufenthG marginal no. 1 et seq.

Case law

CJEU, judgment of 17.02.2009 – Case C-465/07, Elgafaji (subsidiary protection, Art. 15(c) Directive 2004/83/EC, arbitrary violence), dejure.org
CJEU, judgment of 21.12.2011 – Joined Cases C-411/10, C-493/10, N.S. and Others (systemic deficiencies; still delivered under the Dublin II Regulation 343/2003), dejure.org
CJEU, judgment of 19.03.2019 – Case C-163/17, Jawo (Dublin III, concept of "absconding", Art. 4 CFR), dejure.org
CJEU, judgment of 07.11.2013 – Joined Cases C-199/12 to C-201/12, X, Y and Z (persecution on grounds of sexual orientation; no reference to concealment), dejure.org
Federal Administrative Court, judgment of 04.07.2019 – 1 C 33.18, NVwZ 2020, 161 (refugee recognition of Syrian applicants; standard of considerable probability and judicial duty to investigate) — reference to § 3e AsylG (internal protection) cannot be inferred from the source [unverifiziert – Einschlägigkeit für internen Schutz prüfen], dejure.org
ECtHR, judgment of 21.01.2011 – No. 30696/09, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (Dublin, Art. 3 ECHR), dejure.org

Output format

GUTACHTEN — Asylantrag-Vorbereitung
Mandant: <anonymisiert, Staatsangehörigkeit, Eingangsdatum>
Stand: <Datum>

I. Sachverhalt (chronologisch, ohne Suggestion)

II. Frage(n)
    – Welche Schutzform ist tragfähig?
    – Bestehen Dublin-Risiken?
    – Welche Beweismittel sind beizubringen?

III. Kurzantwort
     – Vorrangige Schutzform: § N AsylG
     – Dublin-Status: zuständig DE / Übergang nach Art. 29 / Wiederaufnahmegesuch erwartet
     – Erfolgsaussicht: 🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴

IV. Rechtliche Bewertung
    1. Antragstellung § 13, § 14 AsylG
    2. Dublin-Vorprüfung § 29 I Nr. 1 AsylG iVm VO 604/2013
       a) Zuständigkeit Art. 7 ff.
       b) Überstellungsfrist Art. 29 (6 / 12 / 18 Monate)
       c) Selbsteintritt Art. 17
    3. Schutzformen-Triage
       a) § 3 AsylG – Flüchtlingseigenschaft
          – Verfolgungshandlung § 3a
          – Anknüpfungsmerkmal § 3b
          – Akteur § 3c
          – Interner Schutz § 3e
       b) Art. 16a GG (idR ausgeschlossen wg. Drittstaaten)
       c) § 4 AsylG – subsidiärer Schutz
       d) § 60 V AufenthG (EMRK)
       e) § 60 VII AufenthG (krankheitsbedingt, qualifizierte ärztl. Bescheinigung)
    4. Beweislage und Beweismittelangebot

V. Anhörungsvorbereitung
   – Struktur der Befragung (chronologisch, akteur-, anknüpfungsmerkmalbezogen)
   – Beweismittel (Liste)
   – Dolmetscher (§ 17 AsylG)
   – Mitwirkungspflicht (§ 15 AsylG)

VI. Folgeantrag (sofern relevant)
   – Neue Sachlage / Beweise
   – Frist § 71 IV AsylG iVm § 51 III VwVfG (3 Monate ab Kenntnis)

VII. Frist-Block
   – Anhörungstermin: <Datum>
   – Dublin-Überstellungsfrist-Ablauf: <Datum>
   – Klage- / Eilantragsfrist nach Bescheid: 1 / 2 Wochen ab Zustellung

VIII. Risiken / offene Punkte
     🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 mit Begründung

IX. Quellenverzeichnis

Example (abridged)

Facts: Client K. (Syria, 28 years old, Sunni Muslim from Idlib) entered on 15.03.2024 via Greece and the Balkan route, asylum application on 18.03.2024. Eurodac hit category 1 in Greece. BAMF hearing in 3 weeks.

Dublin preliminary examination: Expected take-back request DE → GR under Art. 18(1)(b) Dublin III. However, ECtHR case law on systemic deficiencies regarding GR exists (ECtHR, judgment of 21.01.2011 – No. 30696/09, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, dejure.org; current situation to be reviewed via current country reports). Argument for self-entry under Art. 17 / prohibition of deportation § 60(5) AufenthG in conjunction with Art. 3 ECHR is tenable. Transfer deadline 6 months from GR consent – client calendar.

Forms of protection triage: § 3 AsylG priority – persecution ground political opinion / religion (Idlib, conflict between government and non-state actors), actors state and non-state (§ 3c no. 3). In the alternative § 4(1) no. 3 AsylG (arbitrary violence in internal armed conflict) – BVerwG and CJEU line on Syria to be reviewed.

Risk classification: 🟡 medium – Dublin proceedings ongoing.

Risks / typical mistakes

Suggestive preparation for the hearing (predefined answers) → credibility problem, rejection as manifestly unfounded under § 30(3) AsylG possible.
Overlooking the Dublin deadline Art. 29: 6 / 12 / 18 months. Upon expiry, transfer of responsibility to DE – must be asserted procedurally.
Deportation ban due to illness without qualified medical certificate § 60a(2c) / (2d) AufenthG → in practice almost always rejected.
Subsequent application late: 3 months from knowledge of the new circumstances; without the deadline no proceedings will be opened.
Procedural Directive violations not recorded by BAMF (hearing duration, breaks, interpreter quality) → difficult to reconstruct later.
Entry from an EU third country hidden → Art. 16a GG generally barred under the third-country rule.
Duty to cooperate under Section 15 AsylG and identity clarification not addressed → decision due to lack of cooperation.